Decision no. 2002/7864 E. 2003/64 K dated 13.01.2003 of the Supreme Court of Appeals

"In the report of the expert committee dated 04.12.2001, it is stated that the products of the case in question are medicines, the patient who uses the medicines does not choose the medication on his / her own request, he / she has to comply with the preference of the physician and the medicines are sold by pharmacists, and the LIPIDROL words are clearly different from each other in terms of ear perception and are clearly indicated by the informed consumer group (doctors and pharmacists) to be sufficiently distinguished in terms of discriminatory appendices, two consonantly prefered by the doctor and written in a fast and illegible manner to the prescription a pharmacist or a pharmacist who reads a prescription is at risk of confusion with the other, the report concludes that there is a resemblance between brands that may lead to illness. According to objective principles, the conscious user groups (doctors and pharmacists) were clearly judged that the brands were not similar to the same extent to the extent that they could not be distinguished in the same field, and the acceptance of the similarity between the brands and the rejection of the case were not correctly seen,